Who-accompanied-whom can matter for PRs living with citizen spouse abroad: UPDATE

[dpenabill]

I get the CSBA officer saying my husband just "got under the wire for his residency requirement". Um, what? I said no we were living together as a family in Switzerland, she said "I'm not going to argue immigration rules with you, he almost didn't meet his residency requirement." I'm confused. We're very careful to make sure we stay on the right side of immigration. Is this the kind of situation you are discussing or is this CBSA officer offering incorrect information? Thanks for any clarification you can give me. To be clear my husband has always resided with me (a Canadian citizen) both here in Canada and while living in Switzerland.

This whole topic derives from some relatively recent IAD decisions (again, thanks to @Tubsmagee and @zardoz for doing the homework which has alerted us to this issue) which indicate reason to exercise MORE CAUTION when relying on getting credit toward the PR Residency Obligation based on accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse abroad. And, in particular, as the topic suggests, for purpose of this credit (an EXCEPTION to the requirement to be IN Canada at least 730 days within the preceding five years), to recognize that who-accompanied-whom can matter, can make the difference.

Additionally, a couple weeks ago there was the following anecdotal report here:

. . . and when I added the days of accompanying my wife outside Canada, the officer rejected that on the ground that she was accompanying me and not the other way. I tried to argue with him that as per the ENF23-Loss of Permanent Resident Status page 25 -- 7.5 Accompanying a Canadian Citizen outside Canada, Paragraph 2 which says "In the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it necessary to determine for what purpose. In other words, under A28(2)(a)(ii) and R61(4), as long as a permanent resident is accompanying a Canadian citizen, the intent and purpose of their absences are not relevant as the residency obligation is met" but he refused this argument.

Recognizing that until now such reports (from you and @mhsaleh65) have been so uncommon as to be almost unheard of (none of the decisions I recall derived from a PoE examination, but rather from PR TD applications or PR card renewal applications), and setting aside potential coincidences (two reports do not alone establish a pattern, but might be a signal), considered in conjunction with the IAD decisions discussed in this topic: perhaps these reports indicate there has been an overt revision in policy or practice to more strictly interpret, screen for, apply, and enforce the requirement that the PR is accompanying the citizen-spouse.

The language in the statute itself does specify the credit is available if the PR is accompanying the citizen . . . not "together" with or "living with" or such, but "accompanying," the meaning of which is addressed in detail in many of the IAD decisions I and others cite and link in the posts above. And in many of the more recent decisions, who-accompanied-whom has mattered, has made a difference, and in several resulted in NOT allowing the credit for time the PR and citizen-spouse were abroad together, even if clearly living together.

And of course the burden of proof is always on the PR, so absent proof the PR was accompanying the citizen-spouse, it is quite possible the border official was accurately addressing a potential concern.

This would be a surprise to me. In fact, the issuance of the multiple-use PR Travel Document (which is not a visa, but very similar in how it works) suggests the contrary, that even if there is some elevated RO scrutiny for PRs living abroad with a citizen-spouse, that is NOT usual so long as the PR and citizen-spouse have been living together and otherwise there is NO indication the PR has not been established in Canada. As I go into a lot of detail above, I still think the latter is more or less the way this is USUALLY approached. BUT I AM NOT an expert. I do not have any inside sources of information.

So your report, now, in addition to that posted by @mhsaleh65, further suggests this is something those potentially affected may want to follow closely and be more cautious about. In particular, at a minimum it suggests that affected PRs (those living abroad with citizen-spouses) traveling to Canada may want to be better prepared for questions, even challenges, about this.

As for your particular interaction with the border official, obviously I cannot begin to second-guess the officer's demeanor, questions, or assertions. I am well aware that there is rarely any percentage in debating any law enforcement related official, including border officials in particular. While many officers will often go out of their way to politely explain things, including the rules, they do not have to, that is NOT their job, and I have often cautioned against relying on a border officer's explanation (for multiple reasons not worth the distraction here). And regardless of how freely the more professional, polite officers will explain things, it is NOT their job, not their role to debate what the rules are, and it would be unprofessional for them to engage in a debate about the rules or how they should be applied.

Which leads back to PRs being better prepared for being challenged about PR RO compliance and the credit for accompanying a citizen-spouse: probably better to approach this in terms of what one believed or understood, rather than trying to assert what the rule is. That is, in essence trying to persuade the officer there was every intention to comply with the PR RO and a belief that living abroad with a citizen spouse was OK and that doing so would meet the PR RO, without challenging or contradicting the officer. Especially if what the officer is doing is expressing a caution, giving an admonition. Nothing wrong with nodding in response to an admonition without challenging the accuracy or appropriateness of the admonition. "OK. Thank you." (And an unspoken "bye.")

In any event, your report is appreciated. It certainly raises the CAUTION level up a notch. This issue appears to still be evolving. It is not uncommon for us to fail to recognize significant changes in policy and practice for a long while after they are implemented . . . if there is no explicit notice or announcement, such changes can be rather difficult for us to learn about until a number of those affected report their experience.

We will have to wait and see where this is going.

 

[etoile]

So your report, now, in addition to that posted by @mhsaleh65, further suggests this is something those potentially affected may want to follow closely and be more cautious about. In particular, at a minimum it suggests that affected PRs (those living abroad with citizen-spouses) traveling to Canada may want to be better prepared for questions, even challenges, about this.

As for your particular interaction with the border official, obviously I cannot begin to second-guess the officer's demeanor, questions, or assertions. I am well aware that there is rarely any percentage in debating any law enforcement related official, including border officials in particular. While many officers will often go out of their way to politely explain things, including the rules, they do not have to, that is NOT their job, and I have often cautioned against relying on a border officer's explanation (for multiple reasons not worth the distraction here). And regardless of how freely the more professional, polite officers will explain things, it is NOT their job, not their role to debate what the rules are, and it would be unprofessional for them to engage in a debate about the rules or how they should be applied.

Which leads back to PRs being better prepared for being challenged about PR RO compliance and the credit for accompanying a citizen-spouse: probably better to approach this in terms of what one believed or understood, rather than trying to assert what the rule is. That is, in essence trying to persuade the officer there was every intention to comply with the PR RO and a belief that living abroad with a citizen spouse was OK and that doing so would meet the PR RO, without challenging or contradicting the officer. Especially if what the officer is doing is expressing a caution, giving an admonition. Nothing wrong with nodding in response to an admonition without challenging the accuracy or appropriateness of the admonition. "OK. Thank you." (And an unspoken "bye.")

One clarification, this was NOT at a PoE. My husband had already undergone immigration inspection and been admitted as a permanent resident when we arrived at Halifax airport. This was when I was clearing our shipment (household goods) through the customs office in Halifax more than a month later (not at the PoE). I *NEVER *argue with CBSA. I thank them for their time and their information. I was just taken aback when she said he "got in under the line." We are very careful to follow all rules and obligations regarding immigration and my husband's residency. I am trying to find out if something has changed and if we can get clarification whether this officer is in fact correct and PRs have to comply with RO regardless of whether they are with their Canadian spouse or if this officer was incorrect or acting outside their authority. It's really important to know because it's hard to follow the rules when the rules are not clear. :/ I'm kind of mad they can potentially change the rules without publishing them and expect people to be essentially mind readers to comply. I've decided I will file a formal complaint.

 

[dpenabill]

One clarification, this was NOT at a PoE. My husband had already undergone immigration inspection and been admitted as a permanent resident when we arrived at Halifax airport. This was when I was clearing our shipment (household goods) through the customs office in Halifax more than a month later (not at the PoE). I *NEVER *argue with CBSA. I thank them for their time and their information. I was just taken aback when she said he "got in under the line." We are very careful to follow all rules and obligations regarding immigration and my husband's residency. I am trying to find out if something has changed and if we can get clarification whether this officer is in fact correct and PRs have to comply with RO regardless of whether they are with their Canadian spouse or if this officer was incorrect or acting outside their authority. It's really important to know because it's hard to follow the rules when the rules are not clear. :/ I'm kind of mad they can potentially change the rules without publishing them and expect people to be essentially mind readers to comply. I've decided I will file a formal complaint.

As much as I am incapable, without having been there, of second-guessing an officer's demeanor, questions, or assertions in a PoE exchange, I am especially incapable of second-guessing an exchange about an immigration matter when the officer is engaged in a custom's matter, let alone a totally separate custom's matter that is separate from the entry into Canada in both time and location. I have some experience dealing with officers doing double duty at particularly small border crossing locations (ferry to Wolfe Island from Cape Vincent, N.Y. comes to mind as one of those I frequently used in the past, among other rather quiet seasonal locations), but that undoubtedly has no relationship to and offers no insight for your scenario at all.

Thus, why an officer proffered an apparently gratuitous comment about PR RO compliance in that setting, in the course of a custom's matter, is beyond me.


Implications about PR RO compliance for PRs living abroad with Canadian-citizen-spouse:

For purposes of discerning not so much the law and rules (they have NOT changed), but policy or practice in how the law and rules are interpreted and applied (kind of like a local law enforcement or RCMP traffic division deciding to give out tickets for driving 10 or 15 k over the limit when for years, on a particular stretch of highway, they customarily issued tickets only if speed was 20 or 25 k or more over), what is more interesting and more important is whether or not the officer's comment derived from actual policy or practice in regards to the credit for accompanying a citizen-spouse, or was something else, such as a misunderstanding about the facts or the rules. The former is of general import, and particularly so as to the issue this topic is about. The latter would be another sort of thing, perhaps of import in another sense but not particularly illuminating as to what is the policy or practice in how CBSA and IRCC are screening PRs relying on RO credit for time together with a citizen-spouse abroad.

We have long known that in some circumstances who-accompanied-whom can matter and make a difference, and we have recently learned it appears this might matter in more situations than we previously apprehended. For purposes of the discussion in this topic, then, what matters is whether your exchange with the official is related to, derived from, and, perhaps, might shed some light about current policy or practice related to how CBSA and IRCC screen PRs who rely on accompanying-citizen-spouse credit (again, kind of like discerning if the RCMP is now giving out tickets to drivers doing just 10 or 15 k over when for a long time the de facto limit was higher).

Reminder: the law which allows for what is typically considered an EXCEPTION to the 730 days presence in Canada obligation, itself prescribed in Section 28(2)(a)(i), is provided in Section 28(2)(a)(ii), see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-7.html#h-20, and it explicitly allows the credit for days the PR is "outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or common-law partner," and it is apparent from several official decisions in actual cases (see previous posts and citations and links in this topic) that the Minister of IRCC advocates distinguishing who is entitled to the credit conditioned on who-accompanied-whom in the formal dictionary sense of "to go with someone." And some IAD Panels agree. But so far only, mostly, so far as published decisions reveal, in more or less notable or egregious circumstances.

As I previously noted, given the PoE experience recently reported, which again is so uncommon as to be almost unheard of, if, IF it appears the official you encountered made the comment because there is a more strict policy or practice in play, that would raise the CAUTION level a notch for PRs living abroad with citizen spouses and expecting credit toward RO compliance.

Obviously there is NO cause for a lot of concern, let alone alarm, based on just a couple anecdotal reports. The IAD decisions discussed above, however, and especially the positions taken by the Minister's representatives in those cases, suggest that PRs living abroad with citizen-spouses, and relying on credit toward the PR RO for that time, would be prudent to at least pay attention to this issue and take into consideration how a who-accompanied-whom analysis could affect them.

As you rightly note, and this is especially true recognizing the extent to which IRCC policy tends to emphasize that the purpose of giving individuals PR status is so those individuals can settle and LIVE IN CANADA, PERMANENTLY, it is prudent for PRs to be aware of the rules and regulations and how they apply to them. Which is not always all that easy (even though people are generally responsible for knowing the law, it is NOT as if PRs are reading and keeping up with day to day Federal Court let alone IAD decisions). Policy or practice can change at any time. Even the regulations and laws can change, although not so quickly and typically with more notice or at least media attention.

As I asserted in my previous post (and in others before that), with the caveat I am NO expert, it is my sense that the general approach continues to be focused on allowing the credit to a PR who is LIVING together abroad with a citizen-spouse UNLESS the PR never was established in Canada or the PR was abroad for a long time before the citizen-spouse joined the PR abroad. That is, so long as the couple has been living together abroad and it is not blatantly obvious the citizen-spouse is abroad to be with a PR well-settled abroad, there should be no real problem. BUT of course it is prudent for affected PRs (such as those who are employed abroad and that is the reason for living abroad, and the citizen-spouse is there to be with the PR not the other way around) to watch for changes, changes in the rules themselves, yes, but also changes in how the rules are applied, changes in the manner and scope of screening and enforcement.

 

[steaky]

You are 100% OK. Your husband meets RO even if he doesn't live with you or visit Canada for 9 weeks every year.
The officer's mention of your husband's RO requirement is just to note you be care of RO, not other thing. Maybe he/she will say so to anyone carry a PRTD to enter. A PRTD is not a normal thing for most PR, right? This will has an officer to pay attention to.

Why PRTD is not a normal thing? Seems pretty normal to me especially if you don't have a valid card and need a flight to Canada from abroad.

 

[bricksonly]

Why PRTD is not a normal thing? Seems pretty normal to me especially if you don't have a valid card and need a flight to Canada from abroad.

Compare to PRs carrying a PR card, PRTD carriers are much lesser. Do PRTD carriers have to face a CBSA agent? Most big airports right now process PRs by scanning card thus no agents needed. Much less hassle.

 

[dpenabill]

Why PRTD is not a normal thing? Seems pretty normal to me especially if you don't have a valid card and need a flight to Canada from abroad.

Compare to PRs carrying a PR card, PRTD carriers are much lesser. Do PRTD carriers have to face a CBSA agent? Most big airports right now process PRs by scanning card thus no agents needed. Much less hassle.

"Normal" is an inherently vague characterization, prone to being misleading in this context. And for sure, at best, is minimally informative. Moreover, other general characterizations, including "common," "standard," "usual" or "unusual" or "not unusual," "regular," and "routine," among others, similarly may be accurate but they do NOT illuminate much and are prone to being misleading. And, such terms are often misused or otherwise inapplicable or inaccurate.

Quantitative comparisons of travelers with differing status documents, in particular, are not much informative. The vast, vast majority of the 90 MILLION or so travelers processed at a Canadian PoE YEAR in and YEAR out, are NOT PRs. The vast, vast majority of such travelers are either a Canadian or U.S. citizen. And most of the others are not a PR but carry a visa-exempt passport, the overwhelming majority of whom now have eTA. This does not render other FN visitors with a visa abnormal, let alone render the smaller number who are PRs abnormal . . . one might say, compared to the number of non-PRs processed at Canadian border and airport entries, the PR is "unusual," or "uncommon," but that illuminates NOTHING of significance or interest about how PRs are examined or processed upon arrival.

This topic is about a very particular issue, potential problems for PRs relying on accompanying-citizen-spouse-abroad credit toward compliance with the PR Residency Obligation. It would be a sharp tangent and distraction to now discuss, here, the variable effect of presenting this or that documentation upon arrival at the PoE, especially since this gets complicated given the impact numerous other factors can and will typically have.

That noted, perhaps some essentials may warrant a reminder.

A PR is statutorily entitled to enter Canada. Technically, proof of identity AND status is required, but proof of identity (passport from home country typically) will usually suffice. Better to present some document to show PR status to minimize Secondary screening to verify identity and status. Generally a valid PR card OR a valid PR Travel Document or even an expired PR card should readily suffice to avoid a referral to Secondary for the purpose of verifying identity and status, and minimize extent of screening (as to identity or status) in Secondary. Other documents may suffice or will help facilitate the process if there is a referral to Secondary, the CoPR being the most commonly suggested one, but other Canadian government identification (drivers license for example) can help.

While presenting a PR Travel Document at the PoE might not be so readily recognized as PROVING the traveler's PR status as a PR card might be, the difference should be minimal and whether there is any question about status will almost certainly depend on OTHER FACTORS (such as differences in appearance between the passport photo and the PR, or apparent irregularities in the documents, or something of a flag in FOSS, and so on). In other words, a PR TD should facilitate the entry process virtually equal (apart from, perhaps, qualifying for kiosk processing) to a valid PR card.

There are of course other reasons why a PR might be referred to Secondary. Customs or immigration reasons.

The Secondary examination of interest in this topic is an immigration examination regarding the PR's compliance with the PR Residency Obligation. In this regard, since the process in approving the issuance of a PR Travel Document requires an affirmative RO compliance Determination, actually a valid PR TD probably has, and on its face should have, at the very least as much positive influence, as to this issue, as a valid PR card. BUT HERE TOO, and especially so, OTHER FACTORS are far, far more influential at both the PIL and in Secondary, first as to whether there is a referral to Secondary for questions about PR RO compliance, and even more so as to the nature, scope, and extent of the examination about PR RO compliance in Secondary.

Overall (again, except perhaps for purposes of qualifying to use a kiosk), PR cards and PR TDs should be relatively EQUAL at the PoE. However, there are probably more circumstances in which the PR carrying a PR card has an elevated RISK of RO compliance questions compared to the PR presenting a PR TD, since, again, the latter is a PR who has clearly been recently subject to PR RO compliance review . . . thus, for example, a PR arriving at a PoE after more than a year's absence and presenting a PR card near its expiration date is far more likely to be subject to RO questions in Secondary than a PR presenting a PR TD.


NOTE RE STATISTICAL COMPARISONS: Comparing the numbers often reveals very little.

It is quite likely that numerically, or statistically, most PRs entering Canada do so at a land crossing PoE following relatively brief trips to just the U.S. The overwhelming majority of these PRs not only do NOT have RO compliance issues, it is more or less obvious to border officers the PR has NO RO compliance issues. So, for example, the statistical fact that a large majority of PRs are casually waived through the PIL, even those who present an expired PR card, really illuminates NOTHING about the risk of a Secondary referral and RO compliance questioning for any given PR. For example, these days it is apparent that a PR who does not have a valid PR card attempting to enter Canada at a land crossing with the U.S. DEPENDS a lot on whether it appears the PR is living in Canada and had just briefly visited the U.S. OR is a PR who appears to have been absent for an extended amount of time and does NOT appear to be living in Canada. (The latter may easily be perceived as traveling via the U.S. to avoid having to apply for a PR TD, raising a yellow if not red flag.)

It is more than inconvenient so many in this forum cite individual anecdotal reports, often their own experience, as representing what is likely to happen, more than a few doing so as if it represents the rule. IT is OFTEN MISLEADING. What can happen and what is likely to happen varies widely depending on many specific factors. Extrapolating from statistical quantities can be and too often is misleading. Extrapolating from anecdotal experiences especially risks misleading.



Bringing this around to this topic and PRs relying on accompany-citizen-spouse-abroad credit:

And of course this is why it is so difficult for us to fully know and understand just how much a risk there is for PRs relying on the credit toward the RO allowed for PRs accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse. The individual cases illuminate what CAN HAPPEN, and the more cases we are aware of the more we can extrapolate some insights about WHY and WHEN. BUT unless IRCC explicitly provides authoritative information about its policies and practices (which is NOT likely to happen), all we know are some (hopefully most) likely risk factors.

 

[bricksonly]

If someone submits his application fro PRTD with solid RO 760 days and is approved. The time for reviewing and delivering costs 20 days. In this case, how will the PRTD be made to make sure the PR enter Canada still meet RO? The PRTD give the date of the deadline of RO? How about for some reason, applicant does not receive PRTD? He will loss PR by accident? And how about so-called multiple PRTD with one year or even longer validation? Does this kind of PRTD works like temporary PR Card?

 

[dpenabill]

If someone submits his application fro PRTD with solid RO 760 days and is approved. The time for reviewing and delivering costs 20 days. In this case, how will the PRTD be made to make sure the PR enter Canada still meet RO?

Such questions illustrate and make the point: many other factors can influence PoE examinations, and some factors will often have a far bigger impact than the document presented to show status. Of course a lot depends on which factors are obvious, or readily apparent, or potentially apparent, or not likely to be noted unless something else has already triggered more thorough questioning.

But sure, if a PR is in compliance with the RO when the PR applies for a PR TD, he will obtain a PR TD . . . and it is possible some in this situation might not actually use the PR TD for quite awhile after the date of application, and in the meantime no longer be in compliance with the PR RO. Yes, the PR is at RISK of being reported upon arrival at the PoE. But generally PoE officers will defer to the PR TD as verification of status so long as it is still within its validity date.

To be in breach of the PR RO puts the PR at risk. Simple as that. Does not mean there will for sure be a compliance examination. Does not mean the PR will be reported if the PR is a little short. DEPENDS. The facts matter.

The PRTD give the date of the deadline of RO?

No.

PR TD has an expiration date, of course. PR has authorization to board a flight to Canada so long as the PR TD is valid. What actually happens at the PoE DEPENDS. As emphasized, many other factors can impact how it goes at the border.

Reminder: when a PR presents a status document at a PoE, the PR is ENTITLED to enter Canada. Once identity and status have been determined, the presumption is NO further examination for immigration purposes is necessary. And, indeed, unless there is something triggering further examination, the PR is generally, almost always, waived through (I was NEVER asked any questions related to my status or my compliance with the RO during the five years I was a PR, not even toward the end when the expiration date of my PR card was approaching while I was waiting to be scheduled to take the citizenship oath).

On the other hand, PRs cutting-it-close, and especially those actually in breach, quite often appear to be oblivious to how easily PoE officers can see and recognize indicators of potential RO compliance issues. Not always, of course. But a lot more so than it seems many realize.

How about for some reason, applicant does not receive PRTD? He will loss PR by accident?

No accident. A PR abroad without a valid PR card is presumed to NOT have valid PR status. The burden is on the PR to establish his or her PR status. Failure to include sufficient information and documentation with the application for a PR TD will typically result in the application being denied. This TERMINATES the PR's status UNLESS the PR timely makes AND wins an appeal.

More than a few PRs abroad have approached the process too casually. Examples seen in the forum include PRs relying on credit for accompanying citizen spouse who fails to document the marriage, or the cohabiting, or the spouse's Canadian citizenship. PR TD denied. Must appeal or yes, PR status is lost.

Other forum examples (and a year or so ago a high profile example in the media) involve PRs who fail to otherwise adequately document the days IN Canada. PR TD denied. (In the high profile media case, IRCC, or maybe it was back when it was CIC, agreed to review the matter administratively in order to facilitate the elderly woman's travel back to Canada.)

And how about so-called multiple PRTD with one year or even longer validation? Does this kind of PRTD works like temporary PR Card?

In some ways. Not sure of the point. The PR card and PR TD are alternative status documents which will satisfy requirements for boarding commercial transportation to Canada.

Various government agencies, mostly provincial, will recognize or even require presentation of a PR card for certain things. In those situations a PR TD will generally NOT suffice.

Each is what it is.

 

[meyakanor]

Thanks to dpenabill for going through several of recent cases to gather information regarding this matter.

In the light of this discussion, I would like to make several comments of my own based on my understanding of how Canadian PR physical presence requirements work, and the accompanying Canadian spouse abroad RO credit.

On the issue of 'temporal nexus', I wonder if the PR spouse can still claim the accompanying spouse abroad credit if he/she joins the Canadian spouse from a third country.

PR husband works in the middle east (after living in Canada for, say, six months, he moved out because he could not find a job), citizen wife moves to France to work there, and then husband joins wife in France after 2 months.

In the above scenario, it is clear that it is the citizen wife who has the reason to live in France, and the reason why the PR husband moves to France is to accompany the wife.

The question is, would this raise a red flag? Does the fact that the husband joined his wife from a third country matter?

Another one is how far back can IRCC go to determine the reason whether these days spent abroad should be credited.

If the couple has spent time together abroad for over five years, would the reason cease to matter?

The residency obligation is very clear in that it's only the last five years which matter, or is that only applicable with regards to time spent in Canada?

 

[Fatimaz]

I need guidance regarding the renewal of my PR Card.
I was sponsored by my husband in March 2001. I stayed in Canada until July 2003 and then moved abroad with him because of his job. My husband and 2 daughters are Canadian citizens.
My last visit to Canada was in July 2007.
My PR Card expired in 2008.
I couldn't visit Canada due to certain family obligations. I have been accompanying my Canadian spouse and children throughout this time period.
I would like to return to Canada permanently now with my family and for that I need to renew my PR status.
Please guide me through this process.
Should I enter through USA or apply for PRTD ? Which is the best approach ?

 

[dpenabill]

I need guidance regarding the renewal of my PR Card.
I was sponsored by my husband in March 2001. I stayed in Canada until July 2003 and then moved abroad with him because of his job. My husband and 2 daughters are Canadian citizens.
My last visit to Canada was in July 2007.
My PR Card expired in 2008.
I couldn't visit Canada due to certain family obligations. I have been accompanying my Canadian spouse and children throughout this time period.
I would like to return to Canada permanently now with my family and for that I need to renew my PR status.
Please guide me through this process.
Should I enter through USA or apply for PRTD ? Which is the best approach ?

In addition to observations made elsewhere, it warrants noting that you do NOT need to "renew" your PR status. Once a PR you continue to be a PR unless and until status is terminated, which except for the terminating of status upon becoming a Canadian citizen, involves either a formal adjudication determining status is lost OR a formal renunciation of status.

That is, you most likely still have PR status.

To travel to Canada by airline, you would need to apply for and obtain a PR Travel Document. Or, alternatively, if you have status to travel to the U.S., you could travel via the U.S. and enter Canada at a land crossing (best to do this together with Canadian citizen spouse).

On the issue of 'temporal nexus', I wonder if the PR spouse can still claim the accompanying spouse abroad credit if he/she joins the Canadian spouse from a third country. . . . . . .

. . . Another one is how far back can IRCC go to determine the reason whether these days spent abroad should be credited.

If the couple has spent time together abroad for over five years, would the reason cease to matter?

I do not know that there is any general answer for these questions. A lot of what we know points to RISKS rather than rules.

In particular, so far as we have seen, there is little indication that IRCC or CBSA has fixed guidelines about this. As I have tried to illuminate above, it seems to me that what can make a huge difference is whether the circumstances trigger a closer, more skeptical look.

Thus, for example, while technically it probably should not matter, it appears to me that if the question arises after the couple are NO longer together, that seems likely to be something which increases the risk of elevated scrutiny and a more skeptical approach by IRCC or CBSA.

I specifically outlined some factors which, it appears to me (I am NO expert), tend to elevate the risks, including some scenarios which I have the sense might trigger increased screening and a more strict approach toward allowing the credit.

There is a fair likelihood of more than a few borderline situations, but so far as we have seen in actual cases in the published decisions, those running into problems do NOT appear to be anywhere near close-call cases, not borderline situations but actually rather extreme situations with very little actual ties in Canada.

I specifically quoted one question because there tends to be a lot of confusion about the scope of IRCC's inquiries in making Residency Obligation determinations:

. . . how far back can IRCC go to determine the reason whether these days spent abroad should be credited?​

There is no limit on the scope of a PR's immigration history which can be CONSIDERED. But how it is considered, what weight that consideration has, how it applies, can vary a great deal. Any information which is relevant to whether a PR is in fact accompanying the PR's Canadian citizen spouse is, well, obviously, RELEVANT. How so is what matters.

BUT the days that count are ONLY the days within the applicable five year period of time.

So, for example, perhaps the evidence indicates the citizen was accompanying the PR abroad some ten years ago. But if the evidence tends to show it has been the PR accompanying the citizen-spouse within the applicable five years, those are the days that count. However, if the circumstances in the last five years can be best understood by looking back at how and why who went abroad, to where, when, obviously a decision-maker in IRCC can and is likely to take that older history into account in determining whether, during the applicable five years, the PR was in fact accompanying the citizen-spouse.

The confusion often lies in failing to distinguish what can be considered generally, as relevant in weighing evidence and facts, versus what specifically counts . . . such as in the calculation of days themselves. The latter is more well defined, more specific. What can be considered generally, that is a far more wide open range.

Which leads to this observation: my sense is that if a couple was more or less well-settled in Canada TOGETHER for a significant period of time, and otherwise it is NOT obvious the PR went abroad long before the citizen, I'm guessing there is still little or no likelihood of a problem, subject of course to actual proof of living together . . . and the latter could be questioned if there are otherwise extended periods of separation.

Thus, for example, the PR claiming the credit for, say, just 800 or so days, and for most of the rest of the five year period the couple was NOT together, that could easily raise a question about whether during those 800 days it is accurate to say the PR was accompanying the citizen. How such a question will be answered is NOT likely a fixed thing. It probably varies considerably depending on other factors . . . including, quite likely, the PR's and citizen's respective immigration history and actual presence in Canada history, going back as far as it appears to be relevant to their circumstances and relationship during the five years that count.

In other words: LOTS of VARIABLES. Few definitive guidelines. No fixed formulas.

 

[dpenabill]

So in that whole post you have written you have failed to prove where explicitly is it Canada written.
Attention do not mix it up with the similar words like Canadian citizen.

Relative to "So in that whole post you have written you have failed to prove where explicitly is it Canada written." Actually I cited, linked, and accurately quoted (leaving out some unnecessary language related to other circumstances in which accompanying is relevant) the applicable Canadian law, Section 61(4), which explicitly provides that each day a PR is ordinarily residing with a Canadian citizen spouse counts as a day accompanying the citizen spouse. Notwithstanding the few exceptions this is actually quite simple, straightforward, and routine. And in recent years IRCC has begun routinely issuing multiple-use PR TDs to PRs living abroad with a citizen spouse.

For the actual law, the governing regulation, again see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-14.html#h-34

While I used ellipses to omit some language, to avoid confusion, the quote is otherwise EXACT and ACCURATELY states the regulation as it pertains to Canadian PRs accompanying a Canadian citizen abroad. This is NOT a complicated let alone confusing or ambiguous regulation. It states that days during which a Canadian PR is ORDINARILY RESIDING with a Canadian citizen spouse GET CREDIT. The meaning of "ordinarily residing with" needs little if any explanation. Living together surely constitutes "ordinarily residing" with one another. As does cohabiting.

This is the Canadian law.

Again, the source of this is the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, which are Canadian law; again, see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-14.html#h-34

The official decisions IN ACTUAL cases I have cited and linked in posts above are largely those which represent the EXCEPTIONS. That is because I started this topic specifically to bring attention to the fact that there are exceptions and to try illustrating the kind of situations which might fall into this. So in the posts above I have cited the cases illustrating when and why there is some risk that who-accompanied-whom is considered.

But beyond doing a little homework, no great intellectual powers are necessary to recognize and distinguish these situations from those involving genuine PRs in marital relationships with Canadian citizens, and who have settled in Canada but subsequently have reason to move abroad . . . in which event it DOES NOT MATTER who in the couple has the primary reason for moving abroad.

For official IAD decisions in actual cases applying the Regulation and to some extent also relying on ENF 23, see for example:

-- the Turken case at http://canlii.ca/t/gtw9d . . . it warrants noting that this is a case in which it is clear the PR is living abroad, in the PR's home country, and the Canadian citizen has gone to that country to stay with the PR just enough, counting that time, for the PR to meet the minimum . . . most of the time the PR is living abroad while the citizen is living in Canada

-- the Raheja decision at http://canlii.ca/t/h47r3 . . . same IAD panel that decided Turken, and same reasoning applied, applying both the regulation and relying on the policy expressed in ENF 23

-- the Mustafa decision at http://canlii.ca/t/hs76z . . . this IAD panel not only applies the same reasoning as in Turken and Raheja, it also explicitly addresses Regulation 61(4) and the meaning of "ordinarily residing," in regards to which the panel ruled:

I find that the meaning of the word ‘accompanying’ in the very narrow context of section 28(2)(a)(ii) is that the Canadian citizen and the permanent resident must be spatially and temporally in the same location and be ordinarily resident together.​

In contrast, even if not explicitly, the underlying factual context for the situations in which the who-accompanied-whom question arises, are generally about cases in which the PR never had any intention to establish in-fact residency or at least never did establish any in-fact residency in Canada or were situations involving claims for credit for time the citizen was essentially VISITING the PR abroad.

In particular, cases going the other way, as I have emphasized, typically involve PRs with little or no intention to settle in Canada. Some do involve cases in which the PR did briefly settle or reside in Canada. So I am not asserting that the EXCEPTION approach only happens to PRs who never established any residence in Canada.

But the Ibrahm case, at http://canlii.ca/t/hst3d is an illustrative example of an IAD panel rejecting the reasoning applied in Turken and Raheja, and instead focusing on who-accompanied-whom . . . while Ibrahm had initially resided in Canada for a brief period, there was minimal evidence he established a life in Canada whereas it was clear his life was established where he worked in another country. At the time he applied for and was denied a PR Travel Document, he was not in a relationship with a Canadian citizen, and it was clear that his former wife, who became a Canadian citizen, had a life in Canada and was more or less visiting Ibrahm where he was living. He had been outside Canada for more than TEN YEARS. The factual testimony provided by him was inconsistent and contradictory. The PR TD application was around FOUR years after he and his Canadian citizen spouse divorced, and thus even if the time she was with him abroad was counted, it was way short of meeting the PR RO.

I mention the Ibrahm case rather than revisiting the several other decisions I cite and link in previous posts above because there is one very instructive comment in that decision. The panel refers to the visa officer's decision to deny the PR TD application. Notwithstanding the fact that the PR, Ibrahm, had made NO effort to establish a life in Canada, it is noted:

If the appellant had been able to prove to the visa officer that he and his first wife had resided together in Djibouti during that period, the officer would have considered it for purposes of determining the appellant’s compliance with the residency obligation under subparagraph 28(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. Absent such proof, the officer refused the appellant’s travel document application.​

It is clear, even in this scenario, the visa office would have given credit for the time the PR was with his Canadian citizen spouse abroad, even in these blatantly obvious circumstances showing the spouse was only, more or less, visiting him, except the PR failed to actually prove the time they were purportedly together. This tends to reinforce what IRCC policy is, which is consistent with ENF 23, to not focus on who-accompanied-whom . . . EXCEPT in extreme situations like where the PR has shown NO intention to establish a life in Canada.

Also see the IAD decision in the Cherrak case at http://canlii.ca/t/hsw3f . . . a decision THIS YEAR which also applies Regulation 61(4) and the policy stated in ENF 23 . . . this panel goes so far as to rule that even if the PR never actually establishes residence in Canada, indeed is a PR sponsored by a Canadian citizen who lands and then the PR returns to the home country and the citizen spouse follows, the PR is still ENTITLED to get the credit.

BOTTOM-LINE:

The reason I started this topic is because, indeed, some recent decisions have focused on who-accompanied-whom, and there are many PRs for whom this issue can loom large. But there really is very little or no grey area. It is actually quite easy to see who might be at risk for this approach.

In contrast, going back to your erroneous example: If Jenny is a PR married to Rob a Canadian citizen (note, by the way, both are Canadians, as in neither is a Foreign National; one a Canadian PR, the other a Canadian citizen; see definitions in Section 2(1) IRPA), and they are living together in Canada . . . and then Jenny gets a lucrative job offer in Silicon Valley, California, U.S.A., and they move to California to live together so Jenny can work there, there is NO reason to worry, virtually NONE at all, that she might not get the credit toward compliance with the PR RO. Really.

 

[keesio]

If Jenny is a PR married to Rob a Canadian citizen (note, by the way, both are Canadians, as in neither is a Foreign National; one a Canadian PR, the other a Canadian citizen; see definitions in Section 2(1) IRPA),

I'm confused by this. How is "Jenny" a Canadian if she only has PR status? I always thought of someone being "Canadian" once they acquire Canadian citizenship. For example, my wife had her oath ceremony recently and she got a congratulatory letter from the Minister of IRCC on officially becoming "Canadian".

 

[dpenabill]

I'm confused by this. How is "Jenny" a Canadian if she only has PR status? I always thought of someone being "Canadian" once they acquire Canadian citizenship. For example, my wife had her oath ceremony recently and she got a congratulatory letter from the Minister of IRCC on officially becoming "Canadian".

Canadian immigration law basically distinguishes between Foreign Nationals and Canadians. While there are sub-groups within these categories, largely dependent on the particular immigration status the individual has, Canadian immigration law defines Foreign Nationals to be anyone who is not a Canadian PR or a Canadian citizen. This is a basic definition, as prescribed in Section 2(1) IRPA. See https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-1.html#h-2

As is rather frequently the case, language often has multiple usages in different contexts. And, rather often as well, different people are prone to using terms differently.

But even in law, the same term can have different meanings in different contexts. "Resident" means different things under the tax laws than it does under other laws such as those governing benefit entitlements.

I do not know the author or source of the congratulatory letter you reference, or what they specifically intended to mean. Many commonly do mean "Canadian citizen" when they state the term "Canadian."

But in Canadian immigration law Canadians includes both Canadian PRs and Canadian citizens.

For example, it has been awhile since I returned to Canada by air, but as I recall upon arrival at some airports there are separate lines for *Canadians* which includes Canadian PRs and citizens, versus others.

As a historical note, when I landed nearly a decade ago the CBSA officer at the PoE congratulated me on becoming a Canadian. I thought, at the time, that was an error. I posted about this . . . maybe not in this forum but in another similar one. @PMM, a long time, reliable participant in this and other similar forums, explained the CBSA officer was correct. As I am wont to do, I then did the homework, which turned out to be easy since, again, it is Section 2 IRPA which clearly makes the distinction.


Edit to add: It warrants noting that oft times the nationality immigrants are referred to is that of their home or birth country. Many Canadians in the Entertainment industry have become U.S. citizens and yet are typically, generally, referred to as "Canadian." Similarly many Brits. Some have been U.S. citizens for a rather long time, but they are typically referred to as British or English or Scottish. I prefer to be thought of as a Canadian, and indeed I think of myself foremost a Canadian, but many people I know still think of me, and refer to me, as an "American," notwithstanding my being an expat for nearly two decades now, a Canadian nearly a decade, a Canadian citizen nearly five years, and someone who barely ever goes to the States (and never for long) despite living less than an hour's drive from the border (if I did not have family in the States it is likely I would never return there, not unless there are some huge positive changes).

But for purposes of Canadian immigration law, in any event, I have been a "Canadian" for nearly a decade.

 

[keesio]

That's fascinating. There are many people who are "Canadian" that do not know it.

As is rather frequently the case, language often has multiple usages in different contexts. And, rather often as well, different people are prone to using terms differently.

Certainly. Though I think we are in agreement that the vast majority of people consider "Canadian" to be "Canadian Citizen"

I do not know the author or source of the congratulatory letter you reference, or what they specifically intended to mean. Many commonly do mean "Canadian citizen" when they state the term "Canadian."

The author of the letter was the Minister of IRCC - Ahmed Hussen. It was given to people taking their oath, given along with their Certificate of Canadian Citizenship and another congratulatory letter from Prime Minister Trudeau. The first sentence in Hussen's letter (verbatim) was:

"Today, you are a Canadian."

It is no wonder people consider "Canadian" to mean "Canadian Citizenship"! If the Minister of IRCC uses the term this way, no wonder others do.

Edit to add: It warrants noting that oft times the nationality immigrants are referred to is that of their home or birth country. Many Canadians in the Entertainment industry have become U.S. citizens and yet are typically, generally, referred to as "Canadian." Similarly many Brits. Some have been U.S. citizens for a rather long time, but they are typically referred to as British or English or Scottish. I prefer to be thought of as a Canadian, and indeed I think of myself foremost a Canadian, but many people I know still think of me, and refer to me, as an "American," notwithstanding my being an expat for nearly two decades now, a Canadian nearly a decade, a Canadian citizen nearly five years, and someone who barely ever goes to the States (and never for long) despite living less than an hour's drive from the border (if I did not have family in the States it is likely I would never return there, not unless there are some huge positive changes).

Yes, as a visible minority, I am certainly used to this concept. In fact, it is one step further for me than just home/birth country. I was born in the USA and moved to Canada nearly two decades ago. Only lived in those two countries. Yet I am often simply referred to as "Korean" due to my ethnic/racial origin. If I was caucasian, I'm sure I'd be referred to "American" more often. Again, it is all perception.